>>>Also I don't think anyone disagrees that things were in a bit of a mess when Obama took office. Arguably he inherited the problem. Also arguably it might have been worse if the Republicans had won.
>>>
>>>So Obama is trying to put out the fire by pouring gasoline on it. Sounds like plan to me.
>>
>>Isn't he continuing what Bush started. If not what was the Republican plan that wasn't implemented?
>>
>>>Any link to the Obama admistration predicting a 6.5 trillion deficit?
>>>
>>>http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/the-national-debt-by-president/
>>
>>I've no idea what the provenence of that site is - but it contains no more information than you already gave...
>>The table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt from the Congressional Budget Office paints rather a different picture. Is it wrong ?
>
>I urge anyone honestly assessing US debt and deficits to consider the following.
>
>Article I of the US Constitution establishes that Congress is in charge of federal spending through authorization and appropriation. While the President proposes a budget each year, it is up to Congress to enact the legislation which directs spending. The president then approves and signs the bills or vetos them.
>
>Presidents throughout history get too much credit and blame, especially in regards to federal spending. Even the term "budget" has been misappropriated to refer to actual spending rather that the proposal that it is.
>
>If one looks at debt and/or deficit history while keeping in mind which party was in control of Congress at the time a much different picture emerges than tracking by executive administrations.

No problem with that. I was just responding to Marcia's post by pointing out that the statistics she posted didn't appear to support her own conclusions....